Transcription

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), Inc., Defendant / Third-Party Plaintiff. NO. C0- JCC DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC S DHL EXPRESS (USA), Inc. ( DHL ) by its attorneys, Bauer Moynihan & Johnson LLP, responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ( Microsoft or Plaintiff ) upon information and belief as follows: JURISDICTION 1. DHL admits this action is within the Court s Admiralty jurisdiction but otherwise is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.. DHL is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Complaint VENUE. DHL is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Complaint. 01 FOURTH AVENUE, STE. 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 TELEPHONE: () -00

2 1 1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF. DHL is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DHL is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL is without knowledge and/or information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. DHL denies Plaintiff s Prayer. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1. DHL repeats and realleges its response to each of the Paragraphs above as if set forth fully herein. 1. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.. DHL denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff s Complaint.. DHL denies Plaintiff s Prayer. WHEREFORE, DHL requests judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, an award of costs of suit and attorney fees, and for such other relief as the Court deems just FOURTH AVENUE, STE. 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 TELEPHONE: () -00

3 1 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state causes of action or fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted as against DHL. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims alleged in Complaint arose from the fault, neglect, negligence, and breach of express or implied contract of Third- Party Defendants CMA CGM, or CMA CGM (America) LLC, or BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORP or BNSF Railway Company, or other entities or a combination thereof for which DHL is not responsible. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs damages, if any, are subject to limitation by the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of, or other statutory enactment and therefore DHL is either without responsibility or its liability is limited by the $00 package limitation, one-year suit time limitation, or other statutory limitation of liability, for the loss or damage alleged in the Complaint. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss or damage is subject to limitation by law, statute, contract, tariff, standard terms and conditions or otherwise. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss or damage to the subject cargo was due to inherent vice, acts of the shipper, consignee or owner of the cargo, or other deficiencies for which DHL is not responsible FOURTH AVENUE, STE. 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 TELEPHONE: () -00

4 1 1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff sustained any losses as alleged in the Complaint, said losses arose out of and were caused by risks, dangers and hazards, all of which were open, obvious and assumed by shipper, consignee or owners of the cargo. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff sustained any loss or damages, as alleged in the Complaint, said damages were caused solely by the negligence of the shipper, consignee or owner of the cargo, their agents, servants or employees, and were not caused or contributed to in any manner by the alleged negligence, breach of express or implied contract or breach of warranty of DHL. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff and/or the shipper, consignee or owner of the cargo failed to take reasonable steps to minimize the alleged damages. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches, or other applicable time limitation and the Complaint should be dismissed. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and/or the proper party to assert this claim. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that the Plaintiff suffered any loss or damage as alleged in the Complaint, which is denied, that loss or damage occurred during a period of time when the goods were not under the care, custody or control of DHL. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DHL is entitled to all defenses in the applicable contract FOURTH AVENUE, STE. 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 TELEPHONE: () -00

5 1 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff s damages, if any, are subject to limitation by contract, bill(s) of lading, tariff, contract of carriage, or otherwise. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to join one or more indispensable parties to the suit. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to give written notice of loss or damage as and when required pursuant to COGSA and/or the terms of the contract. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DHL acted reasonably and properly at all time and in accordance with the accepted practices of the industry. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff s alleged damages were caused and brought about by intervening and superseding causes and were not caused by Defendant or by a person for whom DHL is responsible. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss suffered by Plaintiff was occasioned by parties over whom DHL had no control or responsibility or by events for which DHL has no responsibility. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DHL reserves the right to amend this pleading to reflect additional affirmative defenses as may be revealed though discovery and further pleadings. WHEREFORE, DHL demands judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice and with the award of costs and attorneys fees and for such other relief as the Court deems proper FOURTH AVENUE, STE. 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 TELEPHONE: () -00

Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID 182 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HILARY LONGSTREET, individually and on behalf

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -----------------------------------X Index No. CV-079576-10/QU LR CREDIT 21, LLC ANSWER Plaintiff, Kenneth Chow - against - Defendant. -----------------------------------X

Case 2:13-cv-00727-CG-WPL Document 24 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DAVID ECKERT, Plaintiff, v. No. 13-CV-00727 CG/WPL THE CITY OF DEMING,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION TRADEMARK PROPERTIES, INC., a South Carolina corporation; RICHARD C. DAVIS, an individual, vs. Plaintiffs, A&E

PRO SE OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 PEARL STREET, ROOM 230 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 Ruby J. Krajick CLERK OF COURT HOW TO FILE AN ANSWER An answer

FILED AUG PM 1: THE HONORABLE MARY YU HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER KING COUNTY, SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE NUMBER: ---1 SEA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

Case 1:15-cv-23825-KMW Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2016 Page 1 of 8 DAVID BALDWIN, v. Plaintiff, ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as Secretary of The United States Department of Transportation,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH GRADUATE SCHOOL, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. A:09 CA 382 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COODINATING

Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 87 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PAMELA CHAMPION, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ROBERT CHAMPION, efiled in the Office of Clerk of Court,

Case: 1:13-cv-00903-SSB-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 03/11/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary

INSTRUCTIONS TO ANSWER A COMPLAINT Use our forms at your own risk. Any desired outcome from the use of this form cannot be predicted or guaranteed. In no event will the CIU of Legal Aid of North Carolina

Case 1:13-cv-02747-WJM-BNB Document 190 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action Number 1:13-CV-02747-WJM-BNB KEIFER JOHNSON,

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR JUSTIN GAWRONSKI and A. BRUGUIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT

William D. Marler Marler Clark LLP PS 01 Second Ave, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 1-0 Ph: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DOROTHY H. PEARCE, vs. Plaintiff,

STATE of DELAWARE RESTATED CERTIFICATE of INCORPORATION of JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. At a meeting of the Board of Directors of Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. held on August 26, 2003, a resolution was

similarly situated, of and in the City of New York. County of New York. VINCENT FORRAS. on behalf of himself and all others #111970/2010 Index Page 1 properly described as defendants. defendants deny that

AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF Fluor Corporation (the Corporation ), a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the General Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Bettye Jones; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin; Cross Lutheran Church; Milwaukee Area Labor Council,

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into by and between The LAPD Newton Area Police Activities League, Inc. ( Plaintiff ) and the City of

Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID ASHE Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 10-2236 ( DRD ) vs. DISTRIBUIDORA NORMA,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, Counterclaim-Defendant, v. CAROL ANN STUTTE; LAURA JEAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SMILEBOND SYSTEMS LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, v. Plaintiff, GC AMERICA INC. an Illinois Corporation,

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock St. Denver, Colorado 80202 SCOTT GESSLER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, EFILED Document CO Denver

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 29 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (NORTHERN DIVISION WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC., v. Plaintiff, ALAN AND KRISTIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RMAIL LIMITED, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PATENT FOUNDATION Plaintiff, Case No. v. HAMILTON COMPANY AND HAMILTON

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/28/2013 INDEX NO. 157912/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK VALENTINO SMITH, individually and on

1 k NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION ly virtue of the authority vested in me by the Archivist of the United States, I certify on his behalf, the seal of the National Archives and Records Administration,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 13, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

BENCHMARK MEDICAL LLC, BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT This BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) dated as of the signature below, (the Effective Date ), is entered into by and between the signing organization

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY In re EXPEDIA HOTEL TAXES AND FEES LITIGATION Master File No. 05-02060-1 SEA NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you booked a hotel stay